Monday, January 27, 2014

Note: none of the below takes away from some good arguments D'Souza has made on OTHER matters, as noted elsewhere on this blog, but that's another tale. Now let's get to this one..

Conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza is once again on the hot seat- this time he is under indictment for fraud:

"by a grand jury for alleged campaign finance fraud, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara’s office announced this evening.. According to the office, Mr. D’Souza, 52, is charged “with violating the federal campaign finance laws by making illegal contributions to a United States Senate campaign in the names of others and causing false statements to be made to the Federal Election Commission in connection with those contributions.”

According to a complaint, Mr. D’Souza contributed $20,000 to a New York Senate candidate’s campaign—five times the legal limit—by using straw donors, whom he later reimbursed. FEC campaign finance records show Mr. D’Souza made two $2,500 contributions to long-shot Republican New York U.S. Senate candidate Wendy Long in March 2012—the maximum allowed. Mr. D’Souza’s wife at the time, Dixie D’Souza, also gave $5,000 that March, records show."
Read more here at: http://politicker.com/2014/01/dinesh-dsouza-indicted-for-campaign-finance-fraud/

World Magazine, a Christian-oriented publication, reported that he had checked into a Comfort Suites in South Carolina in September with a woman he introduced as his fiancée, despite the fact that he was already married. The magazine reported that he filed for divorce the same day its reporter called to ask about the situation.

In his defence, D'Souza was quoted in a Foxnews article as saying:"“I had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced,”

Well, well, imagine that, but as we know, Dsouza is lying. This is a guy who has written robust defenses of Christianity, and who is quite familiar with its doctrines, and the Indian "had no idea"? Sorry Dinesh. It is considered "wrong" to ferry around another woman who is not your wife, apparently share a room with her (so say observers at the Christian conference), misrepresent who she is, and yes, get engaged while you are not divorced. Your ex-wife also confirms some of this in divorce filings. According to one NY Times article, D'Souza on learning that the scandal story broke, filed for divorce one day after. To avoid any appearance of impropriety, D'Souza piously announced he was "suspending" the engagement to his "fiancée." There.. that oughta fix it y'all..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-berkowitz/america-dinesh-dsouzas-de_b_5563541.html

The above raises character issues about D'souza, which brings us to "rational discrimination" as regards the reputed character traits of some racial groups. What is interesting is that D'Souza poses as an "understanding observer" of "rational discrimination" (critics dub it "rational racism") where adverse or negative action or attitudes against another race or ethnicity is deemed reasonable based on statistical patterns of behavior by various group members. Indeed per D'Souza in his 1996 book "The End of Racism": "My basic conclusion is that whites view racial discrimination today as a rational response to black group traits."Let's go with that for a moment, and agree with D'Souza. Based on his approach, then "rationally" it should be expected that people view Indians like him as corrupt and untrustworthy. How so you ask? Waaaahelll.. I tell you pilgrim..His own claim that he "had no idea" that "it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced.”How could a man who has become prominent defending Christianity of all things, "have no idea"? What does this tell us about the Indian's truthfulness?And if D'souza demonstrates this mendacity, doesn't this confirm others who draw "rationally racist" conclusions about Indian honesty, mendacity, and corruption? Note- we are using D'souza's own "understanding" to evaluate his case. The black targets of his scorn get no special favors. Why should he get a free pass?

D'Souza conveniently skips over "character issues" in his own homeland- India.It is a clear and long-standing statistical pattern that India, where D'Souza is from, has a high level of corruption. Such corruption is well documented by credible studies. A study conducted by Transparency International in year 2005 found that more than 62% of Indians had firsthand experience of paying bribes or influence peddling to get jobs done in public offices successfully. In its study conducted in year 2008, Transparency International reports about 40% of Indians had firsthand experience of paying bribes or using a contact to get a job done in public office.[ "India Corruption Study – 2008". Transparency International. 2008.-http://www.transparencyindia.org/resource/survey_study/IndiaCorruptinoStudy2008.pdf] In 2012 India has ranked 94th out of 176 countries in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, tied with Benin, Colombia, Djibouti, Greece, Moldova, Mongolia, and Senegal.[http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2012/results/]

D'Souza conveniently skips over "character issues" of people from the Indian subcontinent in the West. A number of weighty commentators, some conservative soulmates of D'Souza had also warned about how the Indian sub-continent "culture of corruption" threatens to poison the culture of Britain. Dominic Grieve, Attorney General of the United Kingdom, said just that publicly in 2013 warning that said denizens from the Indian sub-continent were bringing a culture of mendacity, dishonesty and corruption- warning ruling elites: to ‘wake up’ to the threat of corruption posed by minority communities using a ‘favour culture’. Says Grieve: ‘I can see many of them have come because of the opportunities that they get. ‘But they also come from societies where they have been brought up to believe you can only get certain things through a favour culture. ‘One of the things you have to make absolutely clear is that that is not the case and it’s not acceptable.’

Uh oh. Playing by the rules? Honesty? Bribes? In Jolly Old? Grieve sounds there like those colored Third World politicians complaining about Indian dishonesty in their own countries. Who woulda thunk? Grieve focused mostly on Pakistanis, but the same complaint about people right next door, Indians, is frequently heard in Britain- about "the Indian character" and the pattern of cheating, not playing by the rules, and corruption. Another ideological soulmate, conservative William Dalrymple, also a writer for the prominent conservative American magazine "National Review" like D'Souza, voices similar sentiments- only in India, in his book "The Age of Kali".

Respected Indian writers mention the same. The Booker Prize winning debut novel The White Tiger, written by Indian novelist Aravind Adiga, tells the story of Balram Halwai and tells an oft dismal tale of character paralleling Grieve, where straightforward moral principle or behavior may be a quite flexible concept. Per one review: "Within the novel there are two sides of India known as the “light” and the “darkness”. The light and darkness refer to the economic conditions in different areas of India and really emphasis the inequality that exists in the country. Ironically, the actions that often bring you from the light to the darkness or from the bad to the good are morally questionable. It seems that you need to abandon the values learned in the darkness in order to escape into the light. Basically, to live in the light you need to be dark or bad, whereas if you live in the darkness, your morality might have a chance of staying intact. Balram’s narration, especially later in the novel, does not glorify his actions or achievements but uses his actions to portray how moral ambiguity is a commonly accepted practice."

Therefore, using D'Souza's own "rational discrimination" standard, should we be biased against Indians as prone to corruption and bribery or illegal activity? If so, why should we be surprised at the indictment against the Indian D'souza for making illegal campaign contributions, using his former white wife, Dixie, as a front to do so in the past? Isn't it "rational" that we view all Indians as dishonest and suspect? And hasn't D'Souza proven it by HIS own behavior?

"rational" infidelity?

On the sexual infidelity front, hard data is more ambiguous, but anecdotal evidence and accounts puts infidelity by Indian men as a not unusual occurrence, including men who openly consort with other women even though married. One account below for example sees the dowry-marriage complex as a business arrangement for many Indian men, leaving them free to cheat in between the sheets of "convenience" in these "marriages of convenience." See for example:
http://www.lovinganindian.com/2013/02/16/are-most-indian-marriages-just-a-business-arrangement-infidelity-and-dowry-in-india-and-the-time-my-indian-parents-in-law-arranged-a-marriagefor-my-husband

It could be argued that D'Souza has outgrown Dixie- she was good to start- giving him a certain "honorary white" cachet- the colored who "dares say what no others dare say," to the delight of certain conservatives- and it certainly fit the bill to have a white blond on his arm back then. And he has the best of several worlds.

Indian D'souza himself benefited from allegedly "unneeded" Civil Rights Laws or rulings- like freedom from segregation and freedom to marry his white wife, something forbidden before "unneeded" civil rights laws brought about equal justice.
The Indian D'souza may not even have been allowed to become a citizen at one time in America. In 1923 the US Supreme Court ruled that Asian Indians were not eligible for
citizenship, stripping several naturalized Indians of citizenship. A 1922
federal law stipulated that women who married aliens ineligible for
citizenship would lose theirs- provisions not lifted until the 1940s. The
1921 and 1924 immigration law set numerical limits but only for.
Europeans. Other non whites were banned. The book by Ian Haney 1996- White by law:
the legal construction of race" sets out the dismal facts in detail. It took decades of struggle, suffering and sacrifice to get such things reversed. But along comes the feckless Dsouza to benefit on the backs of those who suffered, even as he dismisses civil rights protections as "unneeded" directly or by implication. Since he arrived on American shores in 1978, well AFTER all the messy and ugly business of the "unneeded" Civil Rights law he dismisses, he and white wife get to stay in any public accommodations he chooses, can pretty much buy housing where they want, and get to send their kids pretty much to the schools they want, without being blocked and sandbagged by racist Realtors, restaurant owners or bureaucrats. Furthermore, he and Dixie lived in Virginia, a state that once imprisoned or threatened to imprison interracial couples for the crime of "miscegenation." D'Souza gets to have to both ways, He can dismiss Civil Rights laws as "unneeded," because as an "honorary white" immigrant coming after the fact, he can enjoy that which he dismisses, and never had to worry like say, interracial couple Mildred Loving and her husband- miscegenation "criminals" sentenced to jail or exile. But hey, mission accomplished. D'Souza's new paramour is reportedly a "minority" woman. Back to those old colored roots, aye old chap?

So again, usng D'Souza's own "rational racism" approach, should we not suspect Indians like him as being likely to cheat?D'souza relates how his white father-in-law objected to him marrying his blond daughter. He says he "quite understood" these objections based on skin color. Indeed- all hale and hearty, and wondrously understanding by the honorary white guy.

But perhaps the white father-in-law had a deeper, more "rational" reason for objecting to the marriage of his daughter, sweet Dixie to D'souza. Perhaps he suspected the character of Indians- as fundamentally more corrupt and as a corollary, suspected them as less reliable and faithful, compared to other men. His objections to the marriage would thus be not only skin color, but might be even more understandable under D'souza's rational bias argument. And maybe Dad was right- for the Indian apparently not only cheated on Dixie, but publicly shamed his daughter, and brought negative attention to Kings College- openly parading is paramour about, even before they were divorced.

Was Dixie's father also disturbed by the occurrence of "honor killings" in perpetrated by Indian men in fits of jealously? There are a number of documented instances where Indian women received short shrift, indeed short life in these cases. In colonial Trinidad for example were the notorious 'Coolie wife-murders', crimes of violence by Indian men against wives suspected of infidelity. Between 1872 and 1900, eighty-seven murders of Indian women occurred primarily among the estate-resident Indians.".. (Bridget Brereton - 2002 - Race Relations in Colonial Trinidad 1870-1900 - Page 182) But is it fair to bring this up? There must be mitigating circumstances. Indeed, but curiously, D'Souza cuts little of such slack to his black targets or scapegoats in his writings.

Another author likewise notes the pattern of violence against Indian women by Indian men and how that pattern is embedded in the Indian culture of dowry expectations and jealously: "In 2008, 1,948 Indian men were convicted in dowry-death cases, and 3,876 acquitted, with 5,824 cases pending, and many were never even brought to justice. Honor Killings. In addition in Bangladesh, 86 women were attacked with acid in 2010, and 12 percent of those attacks were related to disputes over dowries. Acid attacks, while usually not lethal, are designed to maim or disfigure the victim, thus rendering victims marriageable and economically vulnerable."
--Jeffry O.Korgen, Vincent A. Gallagher - 2013 - The True Cost of Low Prices: The Violence of Globalization. pg 21

It is interesting that in 2014, D'Souza's white ex-wife, Dixie, victim of his adulterous affair, filed a report in his court trial on illegal campaign contributions, that he had abused her physically. Again, using the rational bias meme, shouldn't this be expected of Indians? Per Dixie, the Indian repeatedly had demonstrate “flawed character and lack of truthfulness” (see NYT story below).

In statements read in court during D'souza's sentencing hearing, Dixie accused D'souza of fraud and even physically abusing her. QUOTE: "It is my former husband who has an abusive nature. In
one instance, it was my husband who physically abused me in April 2012
when he, using his purple belt karate skills, kicked me in the head and
shoulder, knocking me to the ground and creating injuries that pain me
to this day." The letter also says D'souza forged his wife's name on checks to skirt campaign finance laws, which would explain why his wife was not charged with the crime as well. Read about it here.

Forgery? Abuse? Lying? Kicking a white woman in the head and shoulder? Where are all the good conservative defenders of white womanhood when their token honorary white boy, acts up? Or are they only concerned if a black man shows up? Not good you say, but isn't this what should be expected of an Indian, using the "reasonable racism" approach? Indeed, spousal abuse is a problem in India. Fifty-five percent of Indian women believe spousal abuse is tolerable, according to the most recent National Family Health Survey (2005-06). More than half the men surveyed said that if their wife disrespected their parents, hitting her would be acceptable. So its not just D'souza but his cultural background proponents of reasonable racism should say. But where are the rabid right-wingers who are ever so quick to bash black people, why do they maintain a mysterious silence on the racial aspects of the behavior and character of their "honorary white" golden, er, brown boy?

All the above are reasons D'Souza should NOT have married his white wife and would have been prevented from doing so in their residence of Virginia, before he came to US shores. A number of right wingers would agree. But like D'Souza they seldom detail patterns of WHITE corruption and violence that would make the case in reverse. And D'Souza seldom applies the case in reverse to his own people. Now why is that double standard?

D'Souza's excuse that he "had no idea" that Christian teaching would consider it wrong or unethical to be engaged to someone while still being married to someone else, seems contrived and disingenuous, especially since D'Souza has made quite a name for himself as a defender of Christianity. Yet he "had no idea"? Seriously? Here again, such sophistry raises questions bout character. Did Dixie's dad suspect that the character of the Indian wanting to marry his daughter was not all it seemed to be? Again, wasn't Dad justified in his objection "rationally" about Indians? Not simply skin color, but character and truthfulness? On top of that D'souz'a's white ex-wife, whom he cheated on with an adulterous affair, filed a report in his court trial on illegal campaign contributions, that he had abused her physically. Did Dad also suspect the Indian was not all he claimed to be?

D'souza is not the only Indian public figure to be charged with corruption. Maryland Democratic Party fund-raiser Lalit Gadhia pleaded guilty in the 1990s to funneling more than $46,000 to nearly 20 congressmen, and received jail time as a result. The judge said he was imposing a prison term to send a message "that people inside the process will not be able to manipulate it without some kind of consequences." Ghadia seemed remorseful that his corrupt activities reflected badly on Indians, offering his apologies to the Indian community "for any harm that has come to the cause of their participation in this society." All well and good, but using the approach of D'Souza and assorted "heriditarian" types, shouldn't such corrupt, untrustworthy behavior be expected of Indians?
(Baltimore Sun 1996 "Attorney Ghadia gets jail.."
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-08-07/news/1996220003_1_gadhia-indian-issues-smalkin)

Other institutions in India are hardly sterling "role models." The police for example are notorious for corruption and unwarranted violence. As one Indian Chief Justice, A.N. Mulla said: "there is not a single lawless group in the whole country whose record of crime is anywhere near the record of that organised unit whichi s known as the Indian Police Force." and says one study: "The strong mutual suspicion between the police and the public reains today. The police in India are widely viewed by the public as untrustworthy, corrupt, partisan and ready to favour the politically and economically powerful over the poor and dispossessed."
G. Pelly (2011) State Terrorism: Torture, Extra-judicial Killings, and Forced Disappearances.. p31

But you object dear reader to the "rational racism" meme... Why should ALL Indians be suspect because of certain patterns that pertain to some Indians? That is a good objection- why should all be impugned due to the actions of some? I agree and reject any broad brush stereotype. But see, this "all are suspect" line of reasoning is fine among assorted "heriditarian", "HBD" and other right-wing types as long as it only applies to white people, black folk can be bashed. But the bashers conveniently, seldom apply their own logic the other way- when their own white "role models" are put under the spotlight. After all, its the general statistical patterns that count for "understanding observers" of rational racism. It is is exactly what D'Souza's "rational racism" argument does, and it is embraced by white right wing types enthusiastically as long as blacks are involved.

Proponents of "rational racism" almost never apply it the other way- that it is "rational" for say blacks, based on white group behavior, to distrust or fear whites as violent killers, or deceptive cheaters (the bogus treaties made with Indian tribes in the US for example were made by white people), or that whites are congenital hypocrites (the US constitution's purported democracy and justice, written by whites, seldom until recently applied to non-white people in the US). Isn't it then "rational" for black thugs to do what they do against the well documented violence, deception or hypocrisy of certain conveniently exempt people? Isn't it "rational" for people like Al Sharpton or other assorted "race activists" to gain and keep prominence, given the long legacy of suspicion and anger in black communities at white violence, hypocrisy and deception? You get the picture..

Yet D'Souza laments the "race card" played by assorted black activists. But using his own theory, that negative black evaluations are a "rational response" to group traits (in this case white people) why is D'Souza in high dudgeon about black activists, commentators etc etc who trade in race issues? Isn't their behavior a perfectly "rational response"? How about black thugs bombarded 24/7 with images of white wealth, some of which was gained historically by vicious oppression, discrimination and deception? Isn't it a "rational response" for them to go where the money is? To target people who produce more (including sexual goods like pornography with overwhelmingly white objects of desire), people supposedly so much better, and wealthier?

The reasoning is faulty, and morally ugly, yes, (no endorsement is made here) - but the purpose of this post is to expose the double standards of "rational racism.". Isn't this exactly the bottom line approach of the hypocritical proponents or acceptors of "Rational racism" when all the polite language is stripped away? How come they seldom apply their own reasoning on the flip side? This post's purpose is to expose the ugly double standards so often indulged in by some right wingers. Using that same double standard approach- ALL Indians are morally suspect character. Questioning such reasoning apparently makes one a "politically correct" - a bad person really. Apparently such bad "PC persons" would advocate equal treatment and consideration of people, and if some Indians take bribes, engage in corruption, do adultery and abuse (generically speaking here), this does NOT mean ALL Indians are bribe prone and corrupt, anymore than all white people are liars and hypocrites, or blacks for that matter.

If the "rational bias" model is flipped, lovers of the "rational bias" argument seldom extend its inherent logic to white people. Using that model- we can "conclude" that all or most white people are automatic liars, and their is plenty of evidence to prove it. Shocking you say? Ugly? Unfair? But this is what is being pushed 24/7 among right wing types. Remember than the next time you hear arguments about "rational racism." Ask their proponents why they don't apply them in reverse.. to their own selected group of virtue?

Do certain "racial traits" show as Dsouza and his attorney leave

federal courthouse after his guilty plea?

NOW A QUESTION: How come white people themselves never accepted "rational racism" when THEY were put at a disadvantage?

One author who coined the term "rational racism," Tim Harford, (see his book- The Logic of Life) is oft quoted by right-wing types to justify bigotry or racism, in either "soft" or "hard" aspects. He notes that if
a particular coloured group was perceived to exhibit higher economic
returns to employ, the employer would rationally prefer this group over the
other. This general pattern thus stated, they then go on to "rationalize" Jim Crow, discrimination in hiring, public accommodations and other such things, as inevitable, even good. So the minorities should just stop their politically correct agitation or whining and learn to accept "racial reality."

Curiously proponents, white or "honorary" like D'Souza, quickly move on to other topics when the script is flipped- even-steven. Why for example did whites react so murderously when "rational" bias applied to put THEM at a disadvantage? When employers on California's West Coast in the 19th century discovered Chinese were more efficient workers why did white mobs engage in mass murder so that the helpless Chinese workers did not even have "a Chinaman's chance"? Why didn't the white people, supposed paragons of merit, just "get over it"? Proponents never say. They duck the implications.

Why did white union thugs murder black railroadmen some of whom had been on the job for decades, because they dared to want to move up and work in jobs deemed "reserved" for whites? See Letter of Harry Truman below. Or why did white unions go on strike to force companies to fire good, decent black workers? And not only railroads. In industry after industry, when employers "Rationally" concluded it was cheaper and more profitable to hire blacks over whites, whites responded viciously, using special laws and Jim Crow legislation, to open police thuggery, to the frenzy of lynch mobs. How come the white people just didn't "get over it" and "accept the inevitability" or rational bias? ? And if employers "rationally" perceive hiring cheaper, harder-working Mexican illegals as more profitable to the detriment of whites, why are white people upset? If jobs are outsourced to black and brown and yellow Third World workers, isn't that a good thing, or does it only become a bad thing of white people are left unemployed as a result? After all, aren't employers practicing "rational discrimination" to increase their profits and cut costs? Why are white people upset at that- don't their libertarian or business pundits cheer such "rationality" by employers? Whites have oft reacted violently, but when the shoe is on the other foot, how come "blacks and other minorities" are supposed to remain quiescent and accept their fate under regimes of white bias and discrimination? Can you say double standard? I knew you could..

In his 2014 movie "America" there is a scene in which D’Souza is shown wearing handcuffs in a room that looks like a jail or prison cell. The scene is fictional but not all that divorced from reality- whether legally as noted in his bribery indictment above, or morally/ethically as the adultery episode above demonstrates. The cell is also symbolic of the propaganda package D'Souza has built up over the years, one that has rebounded on him. As of July 2014, D'souza was actually convicted for illegal political campaign donations and money laundering, carrying a sentence of 2 years of prison time. He copped a plea before the judge just as his trial was about to start. The plea deal calls for 10 to 16 months behind bars and a $250,000 fine. He will no doubt seek leniency. In his 1996 book "The End of Racism" D'souza discusses blacks and prisons extensively. Looks like he may be joining "the culluds" pretty soon eh?

Sep 2014 update- Dsouza admits lying about his criminal activity carried out with a friend, his wife reports physical abuse, and he draws a relatively lenient sentence. D'souza, who has condemned judges that are "soft" on convicted criminals, himself got the benefit of a "soft" judge, drawing no prison time, only 8 months of "community confinement" - sort of a halfway house arrangement, one year of "community service" and 5 years probation. Though he went easy on D'souza as far as cell time, the judge dismissed D'souza's claims of political prosecution as whining, and rebuked him repeatedly for his self-serving explanations of the behavior he had pled guilty to. Using D'souza's OWN "rational racism" meme, doesn't this AGAIN demonstrate Indians are mendacious and deceptive, a charge as old as British colonialism on the sub-continent. And doesn't this justify the bias people have against Indians, a "rational" bias, that even the British 2 centuries ago pointed out? The Indian even used his alleged lover as a front, to further his illegal activity per the NY Times report below. Again, we are using his own reasoning, applied to his case.Per the NY Times:

The government charged Mr. D’Souza with illegally arranging to have two people — an employee and a woman with whom he was romantically involved — donate $10,000 each to the campaign of an old friend from Dartmouth College, Wendy E. Long, with the understanding that he would reimburse them in cash for their contributions. Ms. Long was challenging Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Democrat.

According to prosecutors, Mr. D’Souza lied to Ms. Long about the donations, reassuring her that “they both had sufficient funds to make the contributions.” Ms. Long pressed Mr. D’Souza on the issue after the election, and he acknowledged that he had reimbursed the two people, the government said, but told Ms. Long not to worry because she had not known about it.

D’Souza pled guilty to one count on federal charges detailed in an indictment accusing him of violating campaign finance laws and making false statements. D'Souza admitted in front of the Court that he did in fact ask two people to make contributions in their name and later reimbursed them, knowing it was not proper under the law. D'Souza submitted a plea deal on May 19 and the charge of making false statements was dropped.

Judge Berman played a clip from one of Mr. D’Souza’s interviews, with Newsmax TV, during the sentencing hearing Tuesday. While the judge said that Mr. D’Souza had an “absolute right” to express his opinions, he described his claims of political persecution as “nonsense,” and scolded the defendant, saying that he continued to “deflect and minimize” the seriousness of his crime.

“I’m not sure, Mr. D’Souza, that you get it,” the judge said during the sentencing hearing, which lasted more than two hours.

Judge Berman rebuked the defendant repeatedly over the course of the hearing, describing his conduct as “self-destructive” and his remarks in the media as “thoughtless.” The judge even quoted from a letter to the court from Mr. D’Souza’s ex-wife, Dixie D’Souza, in which she said he had a “flawed character and lack of truthfulness” and accused him of physically abusing her.

Also in "America" D'souza attempts to downplay the actual facts of Native American, Hispanic and Black subjugation and discrimination. His basic tactic is a quick boilerplate acknowledgement of problems, but then quickly using extreme outliers to insinuate that things were never so bad. Another tactic is the slanted half-truth- "meretricious window dressing" - superficially attractive claims that have in reality little value or integrity- like cheap souvenirs for the tourist trade, baubles valued by the non-analytical or propaganda focused right-wing set.. As one review notes:

"Similarly D'Souza focuses on single instances of outliers to discuss
usurpation of Mexican lands, Black labor and Native American abuse.
Despite some admitted injustices, Native Americans must be doing well
because now they have casinos. A Mexican American student tells us that
he does not want to go back to Mexico. A Black entrepreneur shows how
easy it is to become successful in America. But meretricious window
dressing aside, D'Souza's Potemkin Villages are so shallow as to only
call attention to the weaknesses of his arguments.D'Souza never
deals with history or context in any meaningful way. Instead he
repeatedly offers scattered factoids and cherry picked quotes. He
actually shows no understanding of history. This lack of insight,
analysis and grounding betray him. Notable is his attempt to deflect
arguments of racism by pointing to the case of the notorious Black
plantation owner William Ellison who, though himself African American,
owned 60 slaves and 1,000 acres. But the system which allowed the growth
of Ellison's rapacious enterprises is exactly the system which
Historian Howard Zinn and the other critics took pains to describe.
We are shown an American pilot shot down in the Vietnam War. The U.S.
role in Vietnam is praised. But the film pointedly ignores the corrupt,
repressive regime which the United States was supporting. D'Souza tells
us that the United States in ALL its wars wanted to extend freedom and
NEVER took land. Somehow he ignores the governments which the U.S. has
toppled and the resources we have extracted from these lands. The same
pattern of one-sided treatment persists throughout the entire film.D'Souza's
deceptions seem more willful than ignorant. His suggestion that his own
criminal conviction and his cheating on his wife are the result of
political targeting are embarrassing and without support. It is a rather
tawdry, but appropriate conclusion to a sad cinematic attempt to trash
one's enemies without benefit of fact, yet explain away actual fact by
suggesting political martyrdom."

And so it goes, the pattern of deception and propaganda. What was that he said again about "rational discrimination" or a "rational response" based on "traits"?

Dsouza

Finally D'Souza himself seems a beneficiary of "affirmative action" - the same 'special treatment' he never ceases to bash black scapegoats for. He was appointed "scholar" at prestigious Hoover Institute at Stanford for example, despite having no serious scholarly publication, or peer reviewed article published, and only having a BA in English. He was appointed president of prestigious private Kings College despite no experience in academic administration, or ministry. As one detailed analysis notes:

"He holds the post of“scholar” [Rishwain Scholar at StanfordUniversity’s prestigious Hoover
Institution] but has earned only a BA in English from Dartmouth where he eventually
transferred. At age 26, he served as Senior Domestic Policy Analyst under
Reagan without a shred of serious policy training. In fact D’Souza, the
political “expert,” has no training whatsoever in social science. Moreover, he
has been appointed to two research institute positions without a single peer-
reviewed essay or publication. And, perhaps not surprisingly, he is treated as
a serious intellectual in the media and publishing world despite the remarkable
lack of research that goes into his books.As an immigrant “success” story, his is more reminiscent of the
political patronage and smoke-filled backroom promotions of over a century ago—only
this time ethnicity and tribalism are denounced and denied as the source of D’Souza’s
power. In reality, D’Souza has little in the way of credentials or training to
merit any of his promotions... If Dinesh D’Souza were not East Indian, he would
simply have no role to play for the Right: there would be no White House
credentials, no appointments as “scholar,” and no press."

DSouza's personal background is relevant because he himself references it on several occasions- implying special insight, he thinks black government employment is "parasitical" (but not employment of white people by government) , and he wants to roll back the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dang shame that a black man can eat his hamburger in peace next to some white people...The brown man with the "special racial insight." On several occasions Dsouza references himself as having some sort of special insight into racial matters and discrimination, as in his 1991 book "Illiberal Education" and in appearances on media shoes such as the MacNeil/Lehrer NEwshour (June 18, 1991) where he specifically points to his Indian background and insinuates how it gives him some sort of special insight into America's racial situation. See page 22- Illiberal Education, where he talks about being from India and how he got involved due to his background in this heterogeneous society. On the MacNeil/Lehrer appearance he opines that America is becoming a multiracial society and the whole issue is "transcending black and white" again implying that he has some sort of special insight because of this "diverse" background - the straight-talking minority guy who says things others dare not say. A self-flattering picture indeed, but one that raises its own questions.

Oh those "parasitical" Negroes working for government- but white people doing the same - hey, you're OK. In 1996's "The End of Racism" he condemns high levels of black employment in government as "parasitical", saying nary a word about high levels among whites, like white southerners, or groups like the white Irish, who fed and feed extensively from the government trough, and indeed used their control of municipal governments to discriminate against other groups. Indeed, as late as the early WW2 era, fully ONE-THIRD of the white Irish were working for government. As historians Bayor and Meager- 1996 show- quote:

"As a consequence, the public sector employed a full
one-third of first, second and third-generation Irish Americans in 1930
compared with just 6 percent in 1900. This patronage helped produce a heavy
concentration of Irish in jobs on the fire and police departments and in
municipally owned subways, streetcars, waterworks and port facilities. Many of
the city's Irish middle class worked on the public payroll, especially in the
public schools, and thousands of others labored in construction jobs tied to
city expenditures. For second-generation Irish-American women, jobs as schoolteachers
were the most sought-after career. Such patronage policies would help to bind
the Irish working class and much of the middle class Tammany Hall for another
generation."

--Bayor and Meagher 1996. The New York
Irish, p. 313

Looks like white people are doing pretty well as far as government checks. But only blacks are dismissively singled out by D'souza on this score. Predictably, he also does not mention the high levels of government employment in his own native India, nor the high levels of government employment among white women, like his wife Dixie. It is only blacks who are targeted as the "parasites" never whites, and certainly not white women like his wife.

The brown man also wants to roll back the Civil Rights Act of 1964- even though he himself benefited nicely by it. In his
1996 book "The End of Racism" he advocates just such a course- page 544- quote: "Am
I calling for a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Actually, yes. The law
should be changed so that its nondiscrimination provisions apply only to
government."

The fact that this self-styled observer with supposed special insight on "diversity" would roll back key provisions (equal treatment from all serving the public) of this critical legislation, provisions in public accommodation that even conservative Republican presidents said needed to be fixed to improve America's overseas standing and to affirm America's commitment to equality for all, and from which he himself and his wife have benefited, testifies to immigrant D'souza's hypocrisy and lack of understanding of some of the deepest threads of America's racial history.

It is easy for Dsouza to speak breezily about "unneeded" legislation when you benefit from it, and never had to live under constant harassment and stigma for over a century. Arriving in America in 1978, Dsouza was/is the beneficiary of over a century of civil rights struggle. It is relatively easy for him to speak dismissively of civil rights- he reaps the benefits while decrying the vehicle. The work of removing barriers was already done when D'souza arrived on US soil. He was free to board any public transportation and take any properly available seat, free to buy property in the neighborhood of his choice, free to check into any hotel, free to eat at any restaurant, free to send his kids to local schools (D'souza arrived after legal battles forced an end to school segregation in Arizona for example and was thus free to attend the school of his choice), and free to marry and take around his white wife, and enjoy all of the above with her, without official harassment or criminal charge due to race, or being denied the above benefits or continually harassed by private transactors because of his race. It is doubtful for example if he had to undergo the indignity of being turned away, frozen out, or denied service when he honeymooned with his wife, or took her to a restaurant, or tried to buy their first house. Aside from the fact that under earlier Arizona law, D'souza as a "Mongolian" could not have legally married his Caucasian wife, discriminatory practices by private transactors in restaurants, housing, public accomodations and other venues against non-whites were common in Arizona prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent years of enforcement. Perhaps as a self-styled "honorary white," reaping the protection of the very law he dismisses, Dsouza has the privilege of never having to worry.

It is also curious that D'souza, who married said white woman, faced the objections of her parents, who did not want the girl to marry an Indian. Dsouza says he was hurt, but like a true "honorary white," considers the objection to be "ethnocentrism" not "racism". But again, due to "unneeded" Civil Rights legislation, D'souza can get away with it, and build a comfortable life for his wife free of private harassment, persecution and significant discrimination, unlike interracial couples who faced jail sentences, and vicious legal and extra-legal harassment, including physical assault and murder. But hey, maybe what they faced was mere "ethnocentrism."

In 2012, after the fall of D'Souza, Interim Kings College President Andy Mills introduced Gregory Thornbury as a "natural fit" for the college. Quoting Acts 15:28, Mills said, "It seemed right to us and the Holy Spirit that" Thornbury becomes president. Really? Where was this spiritual guidance before when they selected Dsouza? One wonders whether it was actual spiritual insight that led to and guided the appointment of DSouza, or whether its King's College "spiritual leaders" were following something more worldly- like Dsouza's cachet in conservative circles. Were they truly spiritually guided they would have seen through Dsouza's glib character, but the "leadership" pursued something else.

Dsouza, in his fawning biography of Ronald Reagan (1997), had this condemnatory statement to make about ex-president Bill Clinton- Quote: “His character flaws and naked pursuit of power and self-aggrandizement have led to numerous scandals.." True enough, but ironically, Douza is hoist on his own petard, for his character flaws and self--aggrandizement- from his bribery conviction, to his leading around another woman not his wife while married at the Christian conference, etc have led to numerous "scandals" where he is concerned.. And so it goes..

Monday, January 13, 2014

In numerous quarters a propaganda narrative as to vast hordes of "unqualified" blacks supposedly causing vast white suffering in employment and education is accepted as gospel. But the reality shows that the much of the propaganda narrative is highly distorted and even bogus in some places. Furthermore the main beneficiaries of "affirmative action" are white, specifically white women. Note: this post is no brief for AA "quotas."

Whites continually blockaded so called "affirmative action" measures using administrative manipulation, subterfuge, stalling, and brute force legal struggle. Scholarly histories, (such as W. Marvin Dulaney's 1996 "Black Police in America) show the dismal landscape confronting blacks and expose the hollowness of white clams about how "meritorious" they are or have been. The good old boy 'networks' didn't seem to concerned about "merit" where blacks were concerned.
In numerous police departments for example, whites rigged the game for decades, particularly white ethnic groups like the Irish, who used police jobs as sinecures and rewards, hiring friends, friends of friends, relatives and cronies in a cosy system of white privilege. Blacks experienced extensive discrimination. Applicants were diverted or denied. Written tests that blacks passed were routinely ignored to favor white candidates, Those that did manage to join routinely found themselves described as "nig..." by fellow officers. Black policemen were given the worse assignments, and often exclusively assigned to the worse "nig.." areas. Black officers with years on the job were sometimes denied promotion in favor of less qualified whites who were better "connected." In some departments certain police ranks were closed to blacks- only whites got promoted to them. Blacks had to file lawsuits to force departments to open up those "reserved" ranks, as in the case of Leslie Shaw, the first black police sergeant in Columbus Ohio.

Some of the above conditions described prevailed not merely in hostile Southern jurisdiction but in liberal northern ones, such as in San Francisco into the 1970s. In San Francisco as elsewhere whites waged and continue to wage deep bureaucratic warfare against "Affirmative action." When a 1970s lawsuit exposed racist practices for example, whites issued a new civil service eligibility promotion list, creating a huge batch of white captains, a supposedly "non-racial" move designed to clog the promotional pipeline to that rank for years, and thus eliminate numerous black candidates. These and other warfare measures show that far from a vast "swamping" of whites with "affirmative action" said AA has been from its very outset, severely limited and fought on every hand, contradicting the white propaganda narrative of mass "suffering" due to "quotas for blacks." See also Sanders and Cohen, 2013, The Zebra killings on San Francisco.

Even where quota systems were implemented by incoming black politicians they were often gutted or blockaded by "reverse discrimination" lawsuits or fiscal problems. Detroit's infamous 1970s quota program under Mayor Coleman Young for example, that mandated a 50-50 black-white promotion rate was immediately slapped with a lawsuit from the predominantly white police union that brought it to a halt or slowed it to a crawl. The fiscal crisis that hit the city in the 1970s further gutted the program- a hiring freeze for example meant few minorities could be hired, and layoffs meant the loss of even more minority candidates - for union rules mandated that those most recently hired or promoted feel the pain first. (Dulaney 1996) In short, quota systems were quickly sand-bagged by whites contrary to the received wisdom.

Shaky "HBD" or "heriditarian narratives try to blame crime increases on "affirmative action quotas" but such narratives remain dubious. Crime increases have been an established pattern long before any significant "affirmative action quotas" in law enforcement, and the numerical increase of minorities under "affirmative action" weighs in at less than 3%- hardly the hysterically charged "massive" numbers claimed in some quarters for "quotas."
Indeed, crime has been on an increase since the 1960s, long before any significant "affirmative action quotas" for minority police officers. Moving forward to the 1980s, the crime rate was not a tale of relentless increases. Indeed from 1980 to 1985, violent crime actually dropped in the US in most categories (US Census- Crime Rate in the United States, 1980–2012- US Dept of Justice). If a "massive" wave of incompetent minororetees, hired under the dreaded "quotas" bogeyman was swamping police departments, why did crime rates do down during this period, when AA plans had been in effect since the early and mid 1970s? From 1985 to 1990, the cycle swung the other way with the advent of crack cocaine and other problems, and that increase ALSO happened in mostly white cities, with mostly white law enforcement personnel. Again, if an unsavory wave of "quota hires" was the problem, whey did mostly white jurisdictions with few "minorities" to blame, also experience the same crime increases?

Beginning in the 1990s, the cycle shifted again and crime began to decline, even in big cities such as NYC. Crime dropped for a number of reasons- ranging from declining demographic sub-groups like youth males, to spatial distribution, to changed policing procedures (the so-called "broken windows" approach, better police deployment, more police on the street, more arrests for minor crimes that had the happy effect of nabbing more wanted criminals, etc), to longer and harsher prison sentences. The 1990s saw minority police numbers at their highest proportion in history, yet crime kept going down, contradicting assorted "HBD" narratives.

Finally assorted narratives of swarms of minorities "under quotas" allegedly swamping supposedly more virtuous white people are dubious as well. The percent increase of black officers hired in cities with consent decrees ("quotas" in the narrative) or example was a mere 2.5 percentage points more than in cities without AA consent decrees. In short the share of police employment going to dreaded "minorities" like blacks under affirmative action was laughably small, contradicting the distorted doom and gloom narratives of "HBD" lore. (US Dept of Justice, "Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics" Reports(LEMAS) 1987, 1990 and 1993.)
Other Refs:

Summary and bottom line
Note- none of the above observations argues for particular policies such as "headcount hiring" nor do they endorse "quotas." In fact the sources mentioned above comment on certain missteps made by new black political regimes, that tried to force through headcounts, and in SOME cases, this did result in reverse discrimination against some white officers. Such was the dismal intersection between race and employment in urban America. The primary point of the examples above is not "endorsement" of "affirmative action quotas" - but to highlight deep-rooted white hypocrisy on 6 counts:

a) The narrative of a vast number of "unqualified" blacks "swamping" whites. These hordes do not exist

b) The
narrative
that whites are driven by "merit." History shows no such virtue, but rather persistent racial favoritism

c) The
narrative
of mass white suffering under "quotas" when in fact whites moved to throttle "quotas" from the very beginning, and in many cases succeeded,

d) The
narrative
of white innocence- when past history to the contrary shows an ugly pattern of racism and hypocrisy

e) The
narrative
of exclusive black benefit- when in fact "affirmative action" was quickly extended to white women and others. Additional funding to expand training or access also benefited whites as well across the board, not only "minorities." New money to expand educational facilities for example lined mostly white pockets.

f) The narrative of massive "quota hires" causing all sorts of bad outcomes is contradicted by historical data. The same bad things happened in mostly white jurisdictions with very few black scapegoats to blame, and the cycles of data expose simplistic "before and after" race narratives as not only distorted, but deceptive as well.

On the education front the same pattern repeats- the propaganda machine's narrative of "swamping" does not hold. Blacks Do Not Rely
On “Quotas” To Much Extent For Higher Education.

AA in “politically correct” places like universities has in
SOME cases discriminated against whites. But the fact is that blacks do not
rely to any significant degree on AA quotas for access to higher education. As
already noted above, the GI Bill has been a much more significant factor in opening
up such access than “affirmative action.” In addition the alleged numbers of
blacks “swamping” white people are rather minor.

Low Impact of AA- One
study from 1982 to 1996, a "hot" period of AA before California's
Prop 209 ban, found that black enrollments in college were a mere 9.7% and this
climbed to a whopping 11.5% by 1996- a "massive" 1.5% increase that
was comfortably outpaced by Asians and even Hispanics. The same study found
that contrary to propaganda claims, black student enrollments at top-tier
universities remained relatively flat- with "affirmative use of race in
this [top-level] sector" not making much impact in enrollments. (Chang et
al. 2000. Compelling Interest. Monograph: University
of Stanford). In short, the much
derided "quotas for blacks" had little impact on black enrollment in
higher education overall- which remained flat. Again, the data shows that
blacks do not depend significantly on "quotas" for their college
access.

AA primarily a force
on elite campuses with small numbers of minorities- Yet another review
(Gurin et al 2003. How does Racial/Ethnic Diversity Promote Education? WJBS.
27:1) found that affirmative action exists primarily in highly selective
colleges that barely have more than 8-10% black students. Such campuses are not
where the vast majority, the OTHER 90-92% of black students attend. As far as
college access, affirmative action is a minor player for blacks. Yet to hear
the howling propaganda narrative, college campuses are swamped with
"unqualified" blacks "taking slots" from "deserving
white students." This is simply not the case. Again, keep in mind that all
black attendees to the top tier schools do NOT need any quota arrangements-
although the barrage of white propaganda makes it seem so.

AA closely limited by
whites from very early on- hardly the wild “reverse discrimination” force
claimed - And where are the alleged legions of white people being
“hurt” by AA? In fact, AA from very early on was narrowly limited by whites-
from its very beginning it was under attack. The continual narrowing of AA
programs, has been long underway. In recent years it is seen in such Court cases as
Grutter, etc has been causing a drop in admissions of black students. One
review example (Gurin et al 2003) found that the liquidation or narrowing of AA
due to court and legislative actions did cause a drop in minority admissions at
higher ranked schools. But the numbers before and after show that “quotas” were
hardly evil mechanism causing all these white “sufferahs.” The AA reduction leaves smaller numbers of
blacks in place, but the numbers were not that high to begin with.

AA opponents admit
its limited impact - Even some academic OPPONENTS of Affirmative Action
note its limited scope- in contrast to the right-wing propaganda narrative of
its vast reach and influence. Richard Sander, a prominent opponent for example
estimates that ending affirmative action would only curtail African-American
law school enrollments by 14 percent. Whoa… Law school quotas in other words
"increased the pool of black students admitted to the nation's law schools
as a group by only 14 percent." (Sander and Taylor, 2012. Mismatch: How
Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to help.) Note that- a mere 14
percent. So, if 100 black guys get into Berkeley Law schools, 14% may have vanished
because quotas ended. But that still leaves 86% who DIDN’T need quotas. So where
is this mass wave of white “suffering” due to quotas? Indeed Sanders holds that
the end of AA quotas means that the WEAKER, less prepared minority candidates
get eliminated. This is fair enough- they were not that many to begin with,
contrary to the flood of white propaganda.

Chump change numbers - The famous Hopwood decision of the late 1990s showed that in 1996-97- right before the AA ban by the court, Black enrollments weighed in at a "massive" 4.7%, of the total enrollment at the elite Texas Law school- hardly the massive wave "swamping white people" assorted propagandists would have us to believe. In Hopwood, white plaintiffs complained that of the 18 black students admitted, 16 had lower test scores. They were certainly right. But in terms of the point addressed here, there were almost 400 students in the total pool- out of these were a mere 18 blacks, 2 of which needed no preferences. The alleged "massive impact" of affirmative action quotas for blacks is simply untrue, though right wingers continue to push this dubious propaganda point almost two decades later. If anything the numbers are in chump change territory, some 16 out of almost 400 slots or a miniscule 4%. (Orfield et al. 2007. Charting the future of college affirmative action. UCLA Civil Rights Project, regents of the University of California)

Gloom and doom prophecies about the elimination of "AA quotas" have not come to pass- suggesting that said quotas were not that critical in the first place to black education, again contradicting right-wing narratives. QUOTE:

"A similar trend played out at the University of Texas’ flagship Austin campus where race preferences were banned in 1996 by a federal appeals court ruling ( Hopwood ). In the fall of 1996, with race still being used, 266 (4.1 percent) of the first-time UT- Austin undergraduate freshmen were black students; 832 were Hispanic students (14.7 percent). By the fall of 1999, with racial preferences eliminated and replaced by a program which granted admission to every Texas high school student, regardless of race, who finished in the top 10 percent of his or her high school class, admissions returned to pre- Hopwood levels on a percentage basis and actually increased in terms of the sheer numbers of minority students who matriculated: specifically, 286 black students (4.1 percent of the first year class); and 976 Hispanic students (13.9 percent)."
--Larry Purdy (2008) Getting under the skin of dicerity,

"The sky has not fallen at Boalt Hall at the University of California, Berkeley, for example. Prior to Proposition 209’s adoption … which bars the State from “grant[ing] preferential treatment … on the basis of race … in the operation of … public education,” Boalt Hall enrolled 20 blacks and 28 Hispanics in its first-year class for 1996. In 2002, without deploying express racial discrimination in admissions, Boalt’s entering class enrolled 14 blacks and 36 Hispanics…. Total underrepresented minority student enrollment at Boalt Hall now exceeds 1996 levels. (Sec. IV, C, 2)"
--Justice Clarence Thomas, quoted in Orfield 2007. Charting the Future of college affirmative action

"According to 2000 Census data, the college graduation rate for Hispanics and African Americans was 13% and 15%, respectively, compared to 31% for Whites and 62% for Asians."
(Orfield et al. 2007. Charting the future of college affirmative action. UCLA Civil Rights Project, regents of the University of California)

In federal contracting the same pattern again challenges the
white propaganda barrage: where are the piteous legions of white people
allegedly being "hurt" by "quotas for blacks"? In fact
since the 1980s, courts have sharply limited the use of "quotas" in
contracting as demonstrated in the Croson case (1989) which ruled against minority-only
contract awards, and the Adarand case (1990). In short, while courts have not
entirely killed Affirmative Action or "diversity", from the 1980s
they have sharply limited its applicability. And this was over 2 decades ago. California's
famous Proposition 209 which outlawed was in 1996, almost 20 years ago. Cynical propaganda claims about
white “sufferahs” are not only mostly bogus but woefully out of date as well.

SummaryNote- the below summary is not an endorsement of the flawed or dubious aspects of affirmative action, nor an indictment of the numerous honorable whites who have, in good faith, sought to create a more just and equitable playing field for blacks. There are such whites. Almost 60 years ago, President Harry Truman for example, while a political animal who calculated advantage and was no flaming liberal, did courageously move to desegregate the armed forces, incurring significant political criticism and risks as a result. It is rather aimed at the propaganda narrative that seeks to cast all blacks as inferior incompetents dependent on "quotas" or "diversity" from whites.

The propaganda narrative aims to obfuscate or hide the following
bottom lines:

(a) The main beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are white,
particularly white women, who actually make up a majority of the population
qualifying for said "affirmative" action. Whites have ensured that
their own benefit- from special programs for women (who would be mostly white
in numerous venues) from employment, to government contracting, to numerous
social programs ostensibly for "the blacks" but in fact, whites take
advantage of. Writing portions were added to the SAT for example so
that more females (mostly white) could post higher scores and thus get more
slots in colleges.

(b) Whites have never ceased favoring their own. They continue to
do so today using BEHIND THE SCENES methods and trendy covering propaganda,
including manipulation of seemingly "neutral" processes. Thus some whites
who speak soothingly of "diversity" have erected zoning requirements
in various neighborhoods that raise the cost of housing and decrease
availability of housing. Result: LESS minorities able to buy housing, and less available
on the market = LESS blacks in the hood, less blacks in the schools of that
hood. Mission accomplished, and all without a single brining cross, howling
lynch mob, or jackbooted concentration camp guard.

(c) Whites themselves are profiting from "diversity" or
AA quotas.Various funding streams to
"help" blacks, create bureaucratic white employment and sinecures,
and help mobilize even more funds in the future. Whites have also benefited by
operating "fronts." As Sowell 2004 shows, the white Fanjul family
from Cuba for example, with a fortune exceeding $500 million - received
huge contract set asides for minority businesses. White European businessmen
from Portugal received the bulk of the money paid to "minority owned
construction firms" between 1986 and 1990 in Washington D.C. White people
have been cashing in on the AA gig for decades since it really got rolling in
the 1970s.

(d) Whites have moved early on to sandbag and block so called
"affirmative action"- using lawsuits, political manipulation, court
cases and systematic defunding of enforcement agencies like the EEOC, which has
a backlog measured in YEARS.

(e) Whites have used affirmative
action as a quick pacifier, and chump change dispenser that fobs off blacks
with minor gains, while hiding larger structures of discriminatory white
privilege from more intense scrutiny and exposure. Thus white government
regimes from police to municipal services entered into consent agreements when
blacks brought discrimination lawsuits that were a "quick fix" -
ensuring that deep discrimination patterns over decades would not be uncovered
or addressed. Hiring a few black tokens was/is a lot less painful that in-depth
exposure of white cronyism and corruption hiding under the guise of
"merit."